I just noticed the _Etymologies'_ entry NUT-, where we find:
"N _nud-_; _nûd_ bond; _naud_ bound."
Isn't this _naud_ clearly another possible case of a-infix past
tense, having a similar phonological environment as does _daul_.
pa.t. of _doelio/doltha_ < DUL-?
Florian "Lothenon" Dombach
===================================================We speak as is right, and as King Finwe himself did before he was led
astray. Let them sa-si, if they can speak no better.
[In isolation, it would indeed be quite plausible to see N
_naud_ 'bound' as a Strong-I past-tense verb (according to the
classification laid out in my _Tengwestië_ article "The Past-Tense
Verb in the Noldorin of the _Etymologies_"; see
However, the entry in which this form occurs demonstrates to
my satisfaction that _naud_ is in fact a direct cognate of the Qenya
adj. _nauta_, and so it thus itself an adjective:
"NUT- tie, bind. Q _nutin_ I tie; _núte_ bond, knot; _nauta_
bound, obliged. N _nud-_; _nûd_ bond; _naud_ bound."
Note the parallel cognates: noun Q _núte_ 'bond, knot' == N
_nûd_ 'bond'; adj. Q _nauta_ 'bound, obliged' == N _naud_ 'bound'.
A good reminder that context and Tolkien's own presentation often are
crucial to the correct interpretation of forms. CFH]